Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's "all of you."

As so frequently happens, you don't make any sense here.

But if you clean it up...and use English words for something other than to prove your have a keyboard of some sort available...

...I will comment.

If you are able to do that, of course.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I was not very interested in the history of the court decision on Dover vs K. but was mystified by the claims you made regarding Discovery Institute's part in it. It just did not match up with the character of what I've read from them.

For the upcoming anniversary of that decision they published an extensive article on their position which paints a totally different picture than what you did. Although I did not explicitly know it, their policy precisely parallels my own on the teaching of ID in public schools.

Here's an excerpt and a link to the full article.

Quote:

The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision has been the subject of much media attention and many misinterpretations from pro-Darwin lobby groups. With the tenth anniversary of Kitzmiller approaching on December 20, Evolution News offers a series of ten articles debunking common myths about the case. Look here for Myths 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
The idea that Discovery Institute switched positions on teaching intelligent design is one of the most egregious untruths to come out of the Dover decision. Both Judge Jones and the media have promoted the myth that Discovery was somehow behind the events that sparked the case. As the National Center for Science Education quips, the question is "To teach ID, or not to teach ID?"
But our position on science education in public schools had been publicly documented since 2002 -- several years before Dover.

Our Policy
Discovery Institute holds that it is constitutional to teach intelligent design in public school classrooms. However, as our science education policystates, "Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education."

Why is this? Discovery Institute's priority is to see intelligent design grow and develop as a science. But when ID is pushed into public schools, that tends to politicize the issue, making it harder for pro-ID scientists to make their case for design to the academy. Thus, our policy goes on to say:

"Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.... Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues."

We advocate that teachers should present both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten_myths_about_2101594101681.html

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Our Policy
Discovery Institute holds that it is constitutional to teach intelligent design in public school classrooms.

The courts however have ruled that it is definitely NOT constitutional.

The Dover trial demonstrated beyond any doubt that the push for ID is just religion in disguise. I won't go into the details here because they are voluminous.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

You obviously didn't read the article but instead ate up the myths told by the 'Darwinist' lobby.

The court found it unconstitutional AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE DOVER SCHOOL BOARD. I'm not defending the Dover school board.

The point was that the Discovery Institute from the beginning opposed Dover's policy. The court did not rule on ID per se, at issue was the specifics of the school board policy.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

then obviously YOU did not read Judge Jones decision. He cl;early states that ID is NOT scientifically derived. I quote from just on place (a summry statement)
" The facts of this case make it abundantly clear that the Board's ID policy violates the Establishment Clause, In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover ID cannot uncouple itself from its cretionist, religious, antecedents"...

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Of coures it is more then hilarious that 'science' (which is a slighlty disguised religion) now is in need of courts and judges!

Sounds a bit like Alice in Wondrland. ha ha ha ha

Very very funny to watch,.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

That article is, like everything else the Discovery Institute hs sid, is loded with errors nd outright LIES. They hve chnged their policies several times since 2001 when they were challenged about the lack of scientific evidence they could even propose (No evidence, no theory).

The original symbol of the Discovery Institute before Dover, was DNA strqnd being "touched by the Hand of God" just like Michelangelo 's "creation of man" as depicted on the Cistine Chapel ceiling. (They began a clever "quick rinse" of all their religious symbols AND religious based titles and also "scrubbed up" their WEDGE DOCUMENT about the same time to remove the original statements about God and Christianity. (It was clever and cynical because they knew damned well they were going to be knee deep in some culture wars in the new century).
If you are o comfortable with their BS quote BOUT "wHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE" Why did the Discovery Institute arrange for all the defense experts and promote the Thomas Moore Law Center to defend (They also denied all of that but the paper record is quite clear)

Another interesting point. When the Dover trial began, one of the textbooks favored by the Discovery Institute was entitled' "OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE". In that textbook, long favored nd financially supported by the ICR, were many many statements referring to Creationism. SOMEONE (Ill bet someone associated with Discovery...) attempted to change all the terms referring to creationism and instead, subbing the term INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Barbara Forrest, a non science expert who testified to the religious aspects of ID (on behalf of Kitzmiller et al) discovered that ONE reference to CRETIONISM got overlooked. It was, in fact, overdubbed with intelligent design. So the resultnt qord was something like,"InteLlicreatiosign" (You can find the real contraction on Google). Imagine thwir embarrassment after LYING their asses off that they were REALLY just looking for the "real"science in ID .
You say your not interested in this case. I can understnd why any card carrying IDer would want to put it behind them and also would want to attempt a change in their "history of Performance". Talk about cynical.
Anything they write today has got to be viewed with a reference to the "big lie" gambit. Were I the Discovery Institute, Id totally disband and try to start over as some other organization. DI has waaay too much baggage in its fraudulent attempt at supporting what is a clearly religiously based worldview.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

While Im at it. The Discovery Intitute sid many things in its ID and Education policy. Its true they issued an almost conciliatory statement about evolution but they always fail to finish their original statements that sid, "In addition , e feel that schools should "TEACH THE CONTROVERSY" in science class"

That is totally disingenuous since a theory is an accepted explanation for a phenomenon , of which all evidence supports and NO EVIDENCE REFUTES. (its a two part statement) ID is, to begin with, not even a theory.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

lol

The lady protest...too much!

Busted!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Life is easy for you isnt it? Being the village idiot probably gets you free meals and a lot of pity.NO?

Hope you never have to suffer having a brain, its a big responsibility, thinking is.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Life is easy for you isnt it? Being the village idiot probably gets you free meals and a lot of pity.NO?

Hope you never have to suffer having a brain, its a big responsibility, thinking is

Of course, like always, you are not saying a thing. Just shooting some ad hominems. Lot's of thinking eh?! lol

where does this girl come from?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

" The facts of this case make it abundantly clear that the Board's ID policy violates the Establishment Clause, In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover ID cannot uncouple itself from its cretionist, religious, antecedents"...

This says it all for me.

"The board's ID policy" is the only thing the court has jurisdiction over. Period.

A judge can say anything he bloody well pleases in his remarks. Judge Jones pronouncements about ID and his blather about not being able to be 'uncoupled' from religion is his own personal utter nonsense both legally and scientifically speaking. I or judge Jones could say the same thing about anything Isaac Newton or other scientist came up with based on his religious beliefs.

And you drank that prejudiced nonsensical Koolaid just because a Judge said it?

5 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
" The facts of this case make it abundantly clear that the Board's ID policy violates the Establishment Clause, In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover ID cannot uncouple itself from its cretionist, religious, antecedents"...
This says it all for me.

"The board's ID policy" is the only thing the court has jurisdiction over. Period.

A judge can say anything he bloody well pleases in his remarks. Judge Jones pronouncements about ID and his blather about not being able to be 'uncoupled' from religion is his own personal utter nonsense both legally and scientifically speaking. I or judge Jones could say the same thing about anything Isaac Newton or other scientist came up with based on his religious beliefs.

And you drank that prejudiced nonsensical Koolaid just because a Judge said it?

If there is the possibility of a creator or a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design. Atheists want to assert there is no possibility of intelligent design, because they want to assert there is no creator...there is no god.

Their position on this is just as foolish as someone asserting that we definitely are we we are due to intelligent design.

On the question...the only reasonable, logical thing that can be said is:

WE DO NOT KNOW...AND ANY GUESS WE MAKE IN EITHER DIRECTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BLIND GUESS.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The original symbol of the Discovery Institute before Dover, was DNA strqnd being "touched by the Hand of God" just like Michelangelo 's "creation of man" as depicted on the Cistine Chapel ceiling.

I noticed that they had changed their site. They also reworded all their "About" and "Mission" statements to an extremely vague form. They are forever distancing themselves from any semblance of honesty.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

What a crooked buncha bums they are. Theyve tried to keep one step ahead of people noticing their nefarious means to fog up their theology with some bits of science. (Did I say Cistine chapel?? I meant "Cystine chapel" [actually its Sistine I know, I just misspelled the amino acid, caue I was trying to be cute]

In about 2007 (after the Dover decision ) the Discovery Institute began preaching that they NEVER mentioned anything about a god, yet , in their initial wedge statements they clearly let it out of the bag. Theyve since closed off any mention of Gods or god-like creatures by careful and cyclic editing.

Its funny because , even though theyve changed thir logos, mission statements, "Wedge Document" and "self published technical documents" , many students and members of the NCSE have held lots of their earlier pubs and statements in cache.

Ive printed out one of their earliest papers regarding "neo-Darwinism" , and its covered with the Sistine chapel symbol.

What kinda annoys me is that Pb is just being a smart ass. He knows damn well the story about Dover and the IDers. He just wants to move -on from a dark day for his worldview of "science"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I just wonder how the people who believe in a god responds to all this?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

actually, the belief in a god v the sciences involved in evolution research have nothing touching each other in any area of overlap . There are no overlaps. Its only been the demands of activist religious types who wished to extend a Christian worldview into science classes ,Thats where the real problems start.
The Discovery Institute is still out there huckstering that ID IS SCIENCE and they shall be smacked down every time they stick their heads out of their burrow with some new scheme to water down biology and geology.
Faith and belief systems are unprovable and they dont have a spot of evidence. Faith is something that provides comfort and belief in a reward for living a good life by most people. It should be respected for that and not a thing more.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I or judge Jones could say the same thing about anything Isaac Newton or other scientist came up with based on his religious beliefs.

Wo, without knowing, you are paraphrasing what one of the defense "experts" was trying to testify about.
NO, youre just denying a fact. The judges decision, although in the body of a silly SChoolboard, was a decision on the meaning and nature of ID. It is religion based and has been trying to separate itself from its "Scientific Creationist" parents. Phillip Johnton, one of the lawyers in the Louisiana Creationism Case bwefore the US Supreme Court, merely chqnged his spots and renamed his "SCientific Creationism Club" to become The Intelligent Designers "LLC".

To deny that is stoneheaded willful ignorance.

Not my problem dude. Youre concrete has hqrdened and Im not gonna waste any time arguing the facts ifn you continue to deny that they even exist.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

My siblings belong to the faith and belief school, so I fully understand how that works. They pray for me and try to convert me - to no avail.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And you drank that prejudiced nonsensical Koolaid just because a Judge said it?

As the judge(in 2005) said, "I fully expect that charges of activism from the judiciary" will be forthcoming.
BUT, further (I paraphrase Judge Jones )," This is untrue.The acts of ACTIVISM have been displayed ENTIRELY on behalf of several entities of the defense all of whom have tried to use the courts to try and sneak a clearly religious worldview on us and fraudulently make it law by court decree"

You should really read more of the case, its been widely discussed and written about. If you promise to do some open-minded reading Ill even post the syllabus of the case (full content-totally unabridged version ).

Yeh , the Discovery Institute is still out there, but a bot less contentious as they "Whitewash their printed tuff" to try to give them some scientific legitamacy that they should have thought about first.

Oh yeah, the TMLC and the Discovery Institute , who defended Dover and oversaw the experts (respectively) and its experts , sorta knew they would have an appeal situation on their hands. They really wanted to appear before the US Supreme Court, but I understand it was the Institute that called in their chips and decided to try in another time . Trouble was, no more cases hve come to the fore, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas had all caved

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know